• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is Google+ like, dead?

Of course it is 😉. Like all of Google's projects, they expect people to use it just because it's from Google. No marketing, just the Google word of mouth.
 
That website says "Facebook killed it today." What did Facebook do? And was it today or has it said that for the past several weeks?

Oh and I never ever ever use Google Plus, which means I use it slightly less than I use Facebook.
 
AstroManLuca said:
That website says "Facebook killed it today." What did Facebook do? And was it today or has it said that for the past several weeks?

Oh and I never ever ever use Google Plus, which means I use it slightly less than I use Facebook.
Click to expand...

I posted that link after I posted this post. I googled "is google+ dead" and got that link. I thought its was a tad funny.
 
me and some others I know tried it out and then quit. Only one of us still bothers. There's just no point to it.

After one month (so, near end of August) it had 22 or 24M users. In October Larry Page said it is up to 40M--and that's after it was open to general public. That represents a major drop off in subscriber growth, a huge one.

as that other google engineer said it was a knee-jerk response.
 
They didn't reach critical mass.

If they got enough users new to social networking to sign up and enough people from Facebook to switch early on, they might have stood a chance.

As it is, Facebook needs to get worse (a la Myspace when Facebook started getting popular) and better features need to come out for people to switch en masse to a new social networking site.
 
Crono said:
They didn't reach critical mass.

If they got enough users new to social networking to sign up and enough people from Facebook to switch early on, they might have stood a chance.

As it is, Facebook needs to get worse (a la Myspace when Facebook started getting popular) and better features need to come out for people to switch en masse to a new social networking site.
Click to expand...
I think their roll out approach was terrible. A phased approach in which the most likely early adopters/geeks are the only ones who can get in and then let the rest of the great majority in only later is nuts. By then many early adopters are tired of it because there's nobody on it.
 
Doppel said:
I think their roll out approach was terrible. A phased approach in which the most likely early adopters/geeks are the only ones who can get in and then let the rest of the great majority in only later is nuts. By then many early adopters are tired of it because there's nobody on it.
Click to expand...

yep

facebook's rollout was so much fucking better.
 
Ns1 said:
yep

facebook's rollout was so much fucking better.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how to interpret this comment. Of course you're pointing out the obvious that FB rolled out, essentially, the same way, and it was much slower about broad adoption than was Google+ --or at least it wasn't quite the same (FB really was so much fucking better) because you were immediately tied in with your college peer groups, as well as the "exclusivity" factor.

yes, they were the same, but Google+ was competing against FB; FB was competing against MySpace...
 
Ns1 said:
yep

facebook's rollout was so much fucking better.
Click to expand...

Facebook worked because:

1) Myspace was terrible. Facebook was very clean and had an easy to use, ad-free layout.

2) Their average user at the time was - by nature of the site - the perfect demographic: college students. College students enter the workforce and bring in other users that way, and teens who look up to college students or are entering college soon find out about it that way.

Google+ has a decent and clean layout, but Facebook is still a huge, entrenched company with most users relatively satisfied with the site. Google+ didn't (and isn't) capitalizing on any demographic that would help it grow by leaps and bounds.
 
I must be one of the few people here that refuses to get a Facebook account. I see no need or desire to get one.
 
zinfamous said:
I'm not sure how to interpret this comment. Of course you're pointing out the obvious that FB rolled out, essentially, the same way, and it was much slower about broad adoption than was Google+ --or at least it wasn't quite the same (FB really was so much fucking better) because you were immediately tied in with your college peer groups, as well as the "exclusivity" factor.

yes, they were the same, but Google+ was competing against FB; FB was competing against MySpace...
Click to expand...

No, the difference is when FB started out it was college specific.

All of my friends were on it, I was on it, we could actually DO something on FB.

Then, eventually, it got rolled out to the world.


G+ rolled out to a select number of people. I could not connect to anyone I knew.

By the time G+ rolled it out to everyone I stopped giving a fuck and went back to FB.

Remobz said:
I must be one of the few people here that refuses to get a Facebook account. I see no need or desire to get one.
Click to expand...

more convenient than a phone number.
 
Ns1 said:
No, the difference is when FB started out it was college specific.

All of my friends were on it, I was on it, we could actually DO something on FB.

Then, eventually, it got rolled out to the world.


G+ rolled out to a select number of people. I could not connect to anyone I knew.

By the time G+ rolled it out to everyone I stopped giving a fuck and went back to FB.



more convenient than a phone number.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know, it's just that I read your statement as both sarcastic and serious, and I couldn't figure out how best to apply it--for those reasons mentioned, lol.
 
Doppel said:
FB was not trying to steal market share from a player dominating the market with three quarters of a billion people.
Click to expand...

funny, I'm pretty sure myspace was shitting on facebook on a regular basis when I started college.
 
Ns1 said:
funny, I'm pretty sure myspace was shitting on facebook on a regular basis when I started college.
Click to expand...

Myspace was defintively the largest social networking site before the FB juggernaut caught on, but it was poorly designed and never more than a niche site for crappy bands, juggalos, and so on. FB, love it, hate it, or feel indifferent about it like me, it's absolutely beyond any comparison with MySpace at MySpace's absolute peak.
 
Arkaign said:
Myspace was defintively the largest social networking site before the FB juggernaut caught on, but it was poorly designed and never more than a niche site for crappy bands, juggalos, and so on. FB, love it, hate it, or feel indifferent about it like me, it's absolutely beyond any comparison with MySpace at MySpace's absolute peak.
Click to expand...

not arguing cuz I've been hating on MS for eons.

MS was huge for non-college people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top